Aims to defend the basic inherited Judao/Christian tone and fabric of Australian society at the national level (culturally not doctrinally). Aims to use persuasion and information to eliminate the threat of political Islam. Will engage in activism to prevent the expansion of any illegal activity aimed at expanding Islamic influence, and will seek to influence Law in pursuit of those aims. We will also highlight the threat of Green/Socialist undermining of Aussie society and Law.

koala-1

The Pen is mightier than the sword, but the Pen must sometimes move the sword against corruption if the corrupt are not moved by the pen.. An idea without an implementer is useless. "The Rulers do not carry the sword in vain"Rom 13:4

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Noam Chomsky Supports Genocide.. as long as it's done by the Left(?)

It would appear so! Chomsky is on record in a number of fascinating talks about propaganda, in which he makes reference to the grand papa of all propaganda Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) who wrote the book on the subject with that as the title. Chomsky seems to have a good handle on how propaganda is used by many powerful interests in the West, but in the process, he is actually committing the same sins he is condemning.

He applauds with the greatest academic finesse, a book by Porter and Hildrebrand that downplays, even denies the Cambodian genodice.

For example, in his talk "Necessary Illusions" (the Q and A period) he states emphatically that the book he supports which dumbs down, dilutes and distorts the reality of the Cambodian Genocide, that he still holds the same views, and that it was a very well documented book, researched to the nth degree etc.....

Here is the reality

By contrast, Chomsky portrayed Porter and Hildebrand's book as "a
carefully documented study of the destructive American impact on
Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian revolutionaries in overcoming
it, giving a very favorable picture of their programs and policies,
based on a wide range of sources." Refuting Chomsky on the question of
documentation, researcher Bruce Sharp found that 33 out of 50 citations
in one chapter of Porter and Hildebrand's book derived from the Khmer
Rouge government and six from China, the Khmer Rouge's principal
supporter.

See it? Not a pea shooters worth of attack on Pol Pot or his psycho regime..nope.. "carefully documented" and 'AMERICA' is...wait for it....the bad guy... well of course you didn't see that coming did you? Hmm like a speeding express train when you are standing on the tracks in broad daylight.

In Chomsky, who describes himself as an 'anarcho syndicalist'.... basically meaning if you are poor, you get organized and steal stuff from those who have more. He makes Grand Theft look like playschool when you analyze the (a)morality of his views!

This the danger of simply swallowing hook line and sinker, views like Chompers, who does have very high academic qualifications, it's just that he is also infected with that despicable 'anarcho syndicalism'.

CONCLUSION.. Interestingly, Chomsky is Jewish, and I'll get he would raise an incredible and hysterical stink if anyone denied the Holocaust... oooooh yeah! But here he is denying the very thing somewhere else..oh wait... it didn't involve 'his' people now did it...aah.. just could not have happened then... and anyway, it's too good an opportunity to miss to bash America. So, I conclude, and this is just my opinion, that Chomsky does in fact support mass murder, by denial, as long as the people murdered are a) Not Jews and b) Represent the educated classes in countries Left wing revolutionaries are operating in.

"Final Conclusion" Chomsky is evil, Chomsky is a nut case... Chomsky is a dingbat fruitcake and dangerous.

His 'dangerousness' comes from the fact that he 'sounds' like some kind of liberating force for good:

The historical norm is illustrated by the dramatically contrasting
case of Central America, where any popular effort to overthrow the
brutal tyrannies of the oligarchy and the military is met with
murderous force, supported or directly organized by the ruler of the
hemisphere. Ten years ago, there were signs of hope for an end to the
dark ages of terror and misery, with the rise of self-help groups,
unions, peasant associations, Christian base communities, and other
popular organizations that might have led the way to democracy and
social reform. This prospect elicited a stern response by the United
States and its clients, generally supported by its European allies,
with a campaign of slaughter, torture, and general barbarism that left
societies "affected by terror and panic," "collective intimidation and
generalized fear" and "internalized acceptance of the terror," (Chomsky-Force and Opinion)

Now unless you are a lazy thinker you could easily be hoodwinked into the propaganda that Chomsky is espousing in this paragraph. Notice that
GOOD GUYS= Peasants, Unions, Self Help groups etc.
BAD GUYS= Governments, the USA and European Capitalism.

Unfortunately, ALL are the bad guys, none of the 'good' guys Chomski mentions will ever turn out to be anything but a new batch of 'bad' guys once they have power. They will use exactly the same methods and mayhem that the current crop uses. Todays Peasant is tomorrow's Tyrant, just ask Chairman Mao Tze Tung.

There is another approach to human organization. Even the decadent yet very intelligent Jean Jaques Rousseau, the author of "The Social Contract" recognized it in the city of his birth- Geneva. He applauded that state as the closest to his ideals of fairness, equality and justice out of all others......and Geneva was a Protestant Christian Theocracy at the time!
Rousseau was no fan of Religion. I suppose the best way to sum this up is by the bumper sticker:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Our Mission-Background.

History is marked with pivotal moments.

BATTLE for ROMEFor the Romans it was the appoinment of Fabius Maximus as temporary dictator in the face of repeated defeats by Hannibal of Carthage. Army after Roman army had been outwitted and slaughtered by Hannibals better tactics. Now he was at the gates of ROME itself. The decision to appoint Fabius saved Rome. He did not confront Hannibal face to face, but embarked on a geurilla war, scortched earth and attrition. Eventually Hannibal had to simply 'go away' because to stay would mean starvation for his army. Rome, was saved.

BATTLE OF TOURS 732In this battle, the rampaging Muslims from Spain sought to take over France. They slashed and burned their way through the Pyranee mountains and into Frankish territory, but were met by a much smaller but well trained and disciplined army of only infantry... led by Charles (The Hammer) Martel.The Muslims were driven away, soundly defeated, and France was saved.

BATTLE of VIENNA 1683 After a long Muslim siege and invasion, their hordes ended up at the gates of Vienna. The last major stronghold of European civilization was set to be swallowed by the ever advancing merciless Islamic juggernaut.over a hundred thousand Muslim soldiers were poised to strike. Jan III Sobieski, with his Polish cavalry came at the last moment.. "here comes the cavalry" and the Muslim Turks were sent packing never to return.....until now, by stealth and immigration and fertility rate.

Now... the time has come for those who can see the past, predict the future and process current events in that light, who can then choose strategies to influence the social order in the interests of all that is decent, pure and enduring. No such mission occurs in an ideological vacuum, it must have a source an underlying ideology. This blog is of the view that new people make good societies, not new systems. Some systems are more viable than others. Plato covers these in his 5 regimes. Rousseau tried his hand at it in his Social Contract, Robispierre tried it with the French Revolution, Marx thought he had the final answer, Hitler tried his final solution, and they all fell apart. If you begin with a flawed idea, you will end with a disfuntional society. The Enlightenment was in reality the endarkenment, opening human minds to so called 'reason'. But even then, Kant's view of what enlightenment is, was just one of around 50 contemporary viewpoints. No matter what else people think, there is only ONE viewpoint or 'law' so to speak which works. "Do for others as you would have them do for you"..it covers everything, except one. That 'one' is the source of motivation to do just that. If humanity is left to itself, the might is right. The one who has the authority for loving your neighbout is none other than He who said "Hear oh Israel".